|
Hall of Shame
There are some people that deserver to be in Hall of Fame. Unfortunately there are others that try to be famous by doing opposite things. And they deserve their own place, so they are not forgotten. So write about them here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
**** [info put on hold for now] |
Re: Hall of Shame
Next time make him swear an oath at the River Styx.
|
Re: Hall of Shame
Oh my, here we go again...
|
Re: Hall of Shame
*grabs some popcorn and takes a seat*
|
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
|
Re: Hall of Shame
Like Hades it would.
|
Re: Hall of Shame
This kind of thread is asking for metagaming consequences (this guy is evil, destroy him in his next game) for traitors and I think metagaming should be kept as rare as possible.
Of course I won't say I will never have metagame considerations. If I know someone who didn't respected his word with me (broke a 3t nap without warning ie) I won't trust him the next time of course, but I dislike the idea of making a list of traitors for the eyes of the whole MP community. It can create a very bad ambiance (and be abused as people can't know the situation in a particular game, that may explain -or not- why someone has done something). The only people I would eventually put in a black list are not traitors (in a roleplayer perspective it's the character/nation who betray in-game not the player) but leavers with a good position (the players turning their nation AI or staling instead of asking for a sub) as they can be very detrimental for other players game experience, and their behaviour *as a player* is wrong. But as even them may have good reasons (don't know, something personnal far more important than games, making them leave in a hurry ; I think I wouldn't be in a good mood for playing, or bothered by searching subs for games if I'm going to my mother's funerals or something like that) after all a black list is never a good idea. |
Re: Hall of Shame
But still, people that are joining 3:1 war in early game, breaking alliance and backstabbing that way have something wrong with morality.
And yeah, in that game I got first attacked by a player that joined the game just because he lost with me in previous one and wanted revenge. And some time after I got attacked by an ally http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif You can get interesting people in newbie games. I have no hard feelings, but I think that others should know who they are dealing with. So they can either join a different game or act accordingly. |
Re: Hall of Shame
What's wrong about ganging up on people? Sure, it kinda limits the prospects of the poor dude who gets ganged up on, but such is life in a multiplayer environment. (If you don't like that possibility you could just as well play a number of 1-on-1 games, where you mod your later games to start with a stable of researches and more territory.) Either try to have some fun dealing all the damage you can, or go AI and start a new game. (and maybe try to be the one tripleteaming in that one)
And for the record: I have been at the receiving and of an early game triple-team gang-bang, so I do know what it feels like. (and while at some points all I did felt quite futile, I ended up having fun, and managed to destroy several invading armies before finally and inevitably going down. ) From my earlier gaming experience (mostly boardgames) I also came into this gaming expecting betrayal to be a real possibility. An alliance to me was something you enter in because it benefits both parties, but at some point in the game where 'there can only be one' either you or your ally would feel the time was right to end the alliance. Since the community here seems to feel that NAP's are rather inviolate, I stick to them too, but if that weren't the case I'd definitely try to make the moment of 'betrayal' come as a surprise, and to try to deal massive damage with an initial surprise attack. (Of course, in many cases this moment of betrayal would never come, because, well, if you really have a good alliance there would only be a need for betrayal when you are the two of strongest nations in the game when nearing the final decision. And let's face it, how often does that happen in 20-player games? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif) In my mind this doesn't (didn't) preclude strong alliances. In fact, I feel it makes for stronger alliances, since it's in your best intrest to make sure your ally really feels you're helping him out - and for your ally to do the same for you - so there's no reason for the sudden backstab. And I've allways felt the extra incertainity, and the need to plan for the unexpected worst possibility, while proceeding towards your main goal added to the fun too. Aniway, as I said, that's apparently not how the community here sees alliances/NAP's, so I go with the flow. But since you're talking about the 'intresting people' you find in newbie games: keep in mind they might be people who come from a gameing community where betrayal is indeed common, and just didn't realise yet how most people here see those things. This Quote:
|
Re: Hall of Shame
"Why do you hate women so much?"
"I hate everyone and everything, no-one gets special treatment!" - from Discworld Noir In a war to rule the world, everything goes <grin> |
Re: Hall of Shame
|
Re: Hall of Shame
Amhazair:
Maybe in really late game things like that happen, though they are surely not normal. Of course he can do the backstabbing. Even in early game. Just instead of helping your ally just attacking him. I see that you approve things like that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif That game has quite small community. And there are many games that you play. If you do thing like that once you must be aware that it won't be just forgotten. "I will backstab someone today and easily find allies next time I need them" - things don't work that way http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif You are either ***** [insert what you want here http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif] that will do absolutely everything to get one more province or you are someone that can be trusted and count in hard times [and vice versa]. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
Going back again at my previous experience: The boardgaming community I was talking about is obviously a lot smaller than the one here in Dominions, maybe about a dozen people. Of course making a habit of betraying people, fickleness, unsteadfastness (is that even a word? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif) betrayal for little gain, etc. will get you a reputation. Of course people will remember when you come out to help them against difficult odds, and when you suddenly seem completely unable to help out because you're suddenly very, VERY busy examining the probability of the existence of alien life forms in your hankerchief or are otherwise 'pressingly' occupied. (note however that 'not actively helping out your ally seems to be a very common occurence about these parts, more common than I had experienced before, and since this doesn't violate the formulaic '3 turn NAP kthx' that is so common here, noone seems to mind that) I never meant to imply I took alliances lightly. A good ally/alliance is a wonderful thing. But if someone pulls a truly game-winning betrayal out of his hat, my only reaction will be admiration (and maybe a little 'damn, why didn't I prepare for that one') and the general reaction of the gamers I knew before comming here would be the same. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Amhazair:
Now we understand http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif But if it really some game-winning tactics on turn 24, which involves losing your pretender, then I will be shocked. Betraying your ally in late game so you can win is another thing, though I would never do that. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
Even if it isn't, as you said, this is a newbie game. Who knows what kind of gaming background players have. While I understand if you are somewhat suspicious of him in the future, (and I probably would be too) but I would definitely offer him a chance to convince me of his good intentions in possible future games. (But then again my own mother tells me I'm way too naïve for this cruel world http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif) |
Re: Hall of Shame
an interesting read on diplomacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brinksmanship guess why America's old "allies" are not so friendly anymore, and why nobody really listens to America. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
Omnirizon, don't take this as me meaning you or your country in particular, it is used as a generic here. You could very well be a liberal American because they hate our country too. jk http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif |
Re: Hall of Shame
Lol. It's like me with americans, what I do care is that their ancestors never entered a war to support their european allies without being personnally attacked first (I wonder if they know that 1914-18 war didn't started in 1917, nor 39-45 in 1941). But anyway some of them try to culpabilize any non-attacked european ally not helping in their own offensive wars. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif
(Anyway all this real world trolling is totally out of topic.) |
Re: Hall of Shame
There's only so long we can rest on our laurels. That was 60 years ago. Should we get a free pass if we do stupid things now?
Besides, real friends will tell you when you're being stupid or wrong. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Yeah, real world troolling... it always amaze me that Europe should be somehow "thankful" to the USA for their efforts in the 20th century wars when the conveniently forget the help they recieved them a few century before. In my opinion, it's better to forget about old grudges and that kind of stuff, and just get along, but the higher-up seem to be of another mind (all the fuss about irak ring a bell ?).
Not that it has any point either way : in a few decades, the Usa will be in the exact same position as Europe is now. A decadent place full of pride but with little decisional power or influence. And another place will rise to take its place and commit the same mistakes over and over again : try to impose its way of life over the whole world. About the game "hall of shame", I think it's rather pathetic to make one. It's just a conflict of opinion and common sense. An example : ganging up 3 to 1 isn't evil, in fact, it saves a lot of the country military, avoid unrest, reduces unrest and civilian casualties, and repercussions due to being at war. It also makes sense when you wish to win. Another example : backstabbing. Making a hall of shame for that means that RP is dead. I don't really think I need to explain that. It's "unfair" only if you believe that the game should be somehow "fair". But then, what you want to do isn't a war, it's a duel or a match. And, last time I've heard, Dominions is a war game, and in a war, the victor writes history. Anyway, in my opinion, the only things that would deserve being in a hall of shame would deserve being kicked from the game and forum altogether : failing to see the difference between game and reality (carrying grudges over games for example, or insults to the person and not to the avatar played), metagaming like hacking (today it's called social engineering though most of the time), and that's basically it. |
Re: Hall of Shame
the whole brinksmanship was an allusion to the underlying mechanics of the topic of this thread. As with all threads like this, it is a general strike out with roots in a specific event.
I actually think brinksmanship is the wrong term though, as that is a deliberate and calculated practice. I think the stink behind this thread is completely un-calculated, and due to simply irrational behavior mistaken for lucid activity. I could also be lucidly irrational behavior. I think they call that psychosis. As for as the real world politics I employed for the allusion, I am, for the record, an american. born in raised in the south. pure dixie, yeehaw. I just happen to attend a university with lots of transnational students. I'm in a sociology program surrounding by transnational sociologists (who specialize in transnational dynamics!) thats a lot of trannys. If there is anything transnational students like to talk about, it is the reasons for the decline of american hegemony. So I get earfuls of it all the time. |
Re: Hall of Shame
There should be a hall of shame, but only when it's hilarious.
The point should not be to make a blacklist of players, but an ongoing roast of deluded and spectacularly stupid decisions by would-be Gods. And yes, you can nominate yourself. Real world wise: I operate under the assumption that nations are generally self-interested entities. Gratitude is rarely, if ever, a motivating factor in decision making, and often an apparently principled stand by a state against, for example, American involvement in the middle east has as much to do with outstanding debts and profitable status quos in the region as it does with moral opposition to US policy. That said, when a regime makes decisions that harm its own nation's interests, alienates longstanding allies, fosters strife and misery in the region it is supposedly aiding, and creates a scenario in which retired generals and peace activists agree in their opposition to those decisions, it rightfully loses credibility, whatever your interpretation is of why those decisions were made. |
Re: Hall of Shame
To save some time I've already prepared a finished debate. All I do now is add some salt and then bake it in the oven for 15min. Now look at the result:
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...art=1&vc=1 Yummm! Delicious. Oh, and on a side note kasnavada pretty much summed up what I think of the whole issue. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
I've got nothing against a list of mistakes and wrong judgements, on the contrary. I think it would be a great place for newbies and more experienced players to have a laugh. But the name "hall of shame" for it is wrong. "The biggest mistakes I've done in Dominions" sounds much better ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif (ouch, my teeth) Furthermore, some of the crazy idea you try to put in that list actually work. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif |
Re: Hall of Shame
Ok but then, say you are in a game with a player with a NAP to one side an an Ally on the other, do I just sit and fail? Or attack one? So best case is to let the NAP 3 end then attack, but if I attack fast my honor is destroyed? Hmmm For me im always suspicious of my neighbors in this game. People are a tad to vicious when they dont have NAp to trust them when they DO have one.
|
Re: Hall of Shame
we should have a "game of shame"
rules are everyone is REQUIRED to backstab a neighbor. it would be honor system to ensure everyone is backstabbing, so only the MOST shameful people could apply to play that game. |
Re: Hall of Shame
I agree with Tichy and kasnavada, a "hall of shame" is a good idea for hilarious or thoughtless mistakes but it should probably go by another name. I have a feeling I might be on there pretty quickly - Zeldor want to say something about Epikbattel? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
|
Re: Hall of Shame
I do not have moderation powers in the MP forum, but I'm going to make a public statement about this Hall of Shame idea nonetheless: NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!
The reason is simple: It's asking for unnecessary friction, bad blood and general mayhem on the forums, grudges and vendettas being carried over from game to game and thread to thread and generally dividing the board and causing conflict. It would also require more work from the moderating staff. Given that I'm currently the most active moderator here, it's not much of a stretch to imagine I'd get to deal with a lot of that work. I can guarantee everyone that if someone starts causing any big problems on the forums, they WILL be swiftly, brutally and mercilessly oppressed until they are no longer a problem. Whether the required level of oppression would reach up to the level of a permanent ban would depend on the case and whether the troublemaker was a repeat offender, but people have been permanently banned from these forums for being more trouble than they were worth keeping around for. So, let this nonsense be buried once and for all. You don't want the mods forcibly solving problems resulting from an idea like this going haywire. You most certainly do NOT want me to be that moderator. You really, REALLY do not want that, trust me. |
Re: Hall of Shame
The fact is that there is no treaty enforcement in this game. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is debatable (I'm solidly in the "bad-thing" camp, myself) but I have to agree with the consensus: the concept of a Hall of Shame is a terrible idea. In part because it's easily abusable (don't like someone? Post on the thread that he broke his word!) in part because it's possible there's a misunderstanding involved (I try to give people benefits of doubts whenever possible) and so on.
However, this is a very small community, and people do tend to gain a reputation. Those that break treaties and/or think it's okay to do so at a whim (or at least, who may be that type of person) are often easily found simply by checking their post history in the forums. After some emotional reactions to being betrayed that way myself a number of times, I have decided to try a new long-term strategy of using this small-community, easy-rep situation to my advantage. If a player betrays an agreement with me, or doesn't follow through on a promise, I will do *anything and everything* I can to ruin that player's game. Period, no-holds-barred. Scorched Earth tactics? You bet! Ignoring another opponent to focus solely on the one that broke his agreement? Of course! Cripple myself, if it means ensuring the other player can't win? Check. (All of course, assuming I can't just defeat the scum normally. If I can do that, none of those extreme tactics are necessary.) The way I figure it is, if the scum-sucking lying bastards need a reason to keep to an agreement, other than that they made it...I'll give them one: screw me over, and I'll do my best to screw you over twice as bad, in each and every game we encounter each other in. *shrug* It's what I want to do anyways. ; ) If they violate an agreement with me in one game, and I can't get revenge on them there, I am perfectly willing to wait until I play them again (if I ever do) and go for their throats in that game. I'm quite willing to sacrifice myself in another game to take out someone that has proven (to me, note!) that they are scum-sucking honourless liars, if that's the only option available to me. Don't like that idea? *shrug* Either don't play against me, or honour your agreements with me when you do, and you won't have to deal with it. And it is very important to note that I am only talking about players that violate stated agreements or promises. If someone gives me a 3-turn warning on our NAP to gang up on me in a war, hey that's fine! You kept your agreement and gave me the promised notice. If I ask for help against a stronger foe, and you refuse to give it...that's fine, we never had an agreement in the first place. We're already at war, and you hand me my butt on a silver platter...hey, good game, excuse me while I go off to lick my wounded ego for a while. And so on, and so forth. No hard feelings. This attitude of course requires that *I* keep all agreements I make, and I do. If giving three turns' warning before starting a war means I lose the game, then *shrug* I guess I lose. Not giving the warning doesn't necessarily mean I'll win...and becoming the type of scumsucking honourless liar I loathe isn't worth a mere chance of winning a single silly game. Eventually, if an opponent is tempted to violate the terms of an agreement he signs with me for a short-term goal...then hopefully he'll reconsider doing so, because he knows that I *will* do everything in my power to get revenge for his betrayal. ; ) |
Re: Hall of Shame
I'd like to clarify my position. I see that this can be a charged topic. In my previous post I was not suggesting a place to attack people who may have backstabbed you once. I was suggesting a place where people can post mistakes THAT THEY MADE THEMSELVES either diplomatically or otherwise so that we can all have a good laugh and learn from each other.
|
Re: Hall of Shame
I vote IndyPendant be put in the hall of shame. That sort of behaviour is pathetic and annoying. This is just a game. You shouldn't take it so seriously that you actively get angry and want to ruin it for someone else who plays better than you do. I play my nations like they should be played. If I'm an evil or neutral nation with an evil pretender, you should be wary of me. I might decide to betray you! That's how things work in the world! If I'm a good nation with a good pretender, I'm going to be extremely honor-bound even to evil nations, and I'll be just as shocked and outraged (in RP) if someone betrays me. This makes much more sense than any other postition on NAPs - way more than any silly conception of "internet honor" or equally stupid "backstab everyone until no one trusts me". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
|
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
In this thread's spirit of abject lunacy, I would like to nominate myself for the Hall of Shame. To those privy to my near-boundless treachery/villainy: kindly "second" my nomination. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Cleveland,
I have witnessed the boundless depths of your black soul and hereby sentence you to the Hall of Shame. Btw those who have played with Zeldor can appreciate the wonderful irony that he originated this thread. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Irony, oh I know the meaning of that word http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif
|
Re: Hall of Shame
oops i was counting on slipping that one under the radar!
|
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
The second thing is maybe games need to start with a better set of ground rules, including agreements about whether NAPs should be honored. If you don't want to announce your NAPs to the whole game, then players could email their NAP agreements to a neutral party who will then record them. That way you have a paper trail for backing up your claims if someone backstabs you. Edit: People are getting sidetracked by the murder example, so I am changing it. The principle behind it is still the same. |
Re: Hall of Shame
That doesn't make any sense, Moderation. You should play the game as your character - this is a standard, constant rule of roleplaying. If your character is evil then play evil. If your character is good then play good. It IS an imaginary friend - that's the entire point! It isn't like committing a murder though, this is just a game and not nearly as serious. That is too stark of a rule - some people will break NAPs, some won't, and that's life. You should get used to it and never trust your allies (in non-team games), because that's part of strategy gaming. Ever played Diplomacy? There's nothing in that game to force you to keep your treaties, and there shouldn't be, it would ruin the point. Same in Dominions 3.
Even if you send your NAPs to a neutral party, there is no guarantee that your ally won't claim that YOU are the one who violated it first! That would also be on the honor system, which is basically what this whole thing is based on. I think carrying grudges across games is completely ridiculous and stupid, and anyone who does it is a worthless player. Thus, the counter to the breaking of NAPs is only this: send an in-game message to everyone in your character's voice, informing them of the breaking of the NAP and recommending that all good nations enforce the honor of the NAP. It makes sense both in game terms and it honors player participation. I'm honestly not sure where this whole "NAPs are inviolate" concept started, but I think it is silly. There shouldn't even be NAPs. You should create each peace treaty on a personal basis with your opponent, and hold them to their honor on a personal basis. It's the same thing you would do in board games like Diplomacy or Risk. Like I said before its a standard in strategy games, and the whiners need to get used to it. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
NAP nor anything related to a game should be done on a out-of-character basis, that's just calling for real life and lasting grudge. But, somehow, when a real person is involved, all should be fair ? When I RP I actually choose to give some hints before backstabbing people, and show that my pretender isn't reliable. If people don't get it, it's their own loss. I like to think of NAP and alliances as secrets. Having them recorded by a third party just makes the gem less fun for me, and it screams for corruption of the neutral party. I have to add that the cry of outrage of the betrayed one is actually more funny than really threatening. In a MP game, people do not attack others without a goal. See your opponent's goal and basically you win. I realise this post may sound harsh and may alarm some of my allies in the games I play, but : - comparing a murder in a game to real life, to me, shows that you need to take a break from playing and cool down a bit. - even if my goal, like most of you, is to win, alienating most of the map against me by breaking an NAP isn't really my idea of "winning". - I tend to give hints of what my pretender personality is during the game. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Actually I don't believe that everyone roleplays. And people have different definitions of what roleplaying is and roleplay to different extents. And people don't always announce how they're going to roleplay, which further complicates things.
As for myself, I may decide roleplay about trivial amusing things that add flavor to the game or in special situations like a pre-made scenario, but I don't think it's entirely fair to use your roleplaying pretender god identity as someone to blame for your strategic decisions as a person, specifically in the case of the breaking of NAPs or other underhanded tactics. There's a person behind that fictional pretender god and that person should be responsible for what happens in the game. Another problem is the fact that everyone seems to have a slightly different definition of roleplaying and we seem to go into it in an improvised and haphazard manner. While this can be fun, I think in a strategy game like Dom 3 it creates endless possibilities for for misunderstandings and miscommunication if not all parties on the same pages. Maybe it's just best to declare your role-playing intentions at the start of the game at least. >"Your character is evil then play evil. If your character is good then play good." You know it's rather complicated figuring out which nations are evil because everyone has a different definition. You may want to refer to this thread for a discussion of which nations are evil. There's also a similar thread on who is good and how it is defined here. And just because a nation appears to be "good", does this mean they will automatically honor NAPs? For example, let's say Arcos signs a NAP with Nation X. Most people regard Arcos as a fairly honorable and "good" nation. But you could also come up with roleplaying reasons that explain there is an ambitious general working for Arcos who went ahead and broke the truce against everyone's wishes, and well crap, I guess we're in a war now. The point is you can make up flimsy roleplaying reasons to excuse anything, but you as the player, making the moves, are ultimately responsible for everything that happens in your nation and you should accept that responsibility. Is Arcos evil? Most people regard them as "good", but they keep slaves to support their lavish way of life. How about Marignon? They are often regarded as "holy", but some people think they're like Nazis. I now believe that there aren't many if any "good" nations in Dominions. There can be a case made that all the nations are evil to some extent. If this is the case, the simple arithmetic of X is an evil nation and therefore it breaks it's NAPs, while Y is a good nation that honors it's NAPs falls apart. >"Even if you send your NAPs to a neutral party, there is no guarantee that your ally won't claim that YOU are the one who violated it first! That would also be on the honor system, which is basically what this whole thing is based on." You could send your turn files to that neutral party as well. Then there's a proof of who attacked who first. >"I think carrying grudges across games is completely ridiculous and stupid, and anyone who does it is a worthless player." However, I do agree with you here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif And the end of the day though, I believe that diplomatic functions like negotiating NAPs should be done out of character. This way the other player knows they are dealing with another person and not a fictional pretender god. I think this is a good thing, because then it is a basis for trust. Trust that is earned is valuable, and therefore you may not want to throw away it away in the next game by breaking a NAP. You should assume responsibility for honoring or breaking the said NAP as a person, not as a fictional pretender identity that you get to throw away at the end of the game. As a result, you can let your reputation as trustworthy player hang on this instead of hiding behind fictional identities. This in turn forms a good basis for a community of players who may be more enjoyable to play with than roleplayers who will break a NAP a the drop of a hat and claim they did it because their pretender god made them do it. If every time I play a game with you, I am dealing with a brand new Pretender God X who has no history and suffers no consequences at the end of the game, then how can I trust you aside from measuring you against very relative standards of whether you are living up to the "goodness" or "evilness" of your nation, which is pretty much self-defined. As a result, you create a kind of fun-house world, where no one is really responsible. There's a time and a place where roleplay is fun, but I feel that too often it gets abused or trotted out as flimsy excuse for player decisions that were made for strategic reasons. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Well, I agree with kasnavada - if I'm going to betray someone, I give out hints in my RP with that person or on the boards. If they don't pick up on it, then it is there fault. Likewise, if someone doesn't guard against an ally's betrayal and I take advantage of it...that isn't my fault. That's the other person's fault for being too naive.
This is just a fact of strategic wargames. Otherwise I agree with your points, Moderation. It is rather hard to tell which nations are completely good and which are completely evil. |
Re: Hall of Shame
I've said most of it in my original post above, but here's a few points I would like to make on this subject:
--Comparing breaking NAPs to murder is rather extreme. (Sorry, moderation. ; ) --Last I checked, this was a turn-based fantasy strategy game with some few roleplaying elements. Not DND. Blaming any backstabbing on RP is nothing more than a convenient cop-out. --"Evil" is too easily altered to fit one's desires. Is MA Ermor a vile nation of death-worshippers, or a virtuous people desperately trying to hold onto their humanity in the face of temptation from undead? Is MA Man based loosely on noble Arthurian lore, or precursors to modern-day mankind with all the corruption that entails? MA Marignon can be a good example of a lawful, honourable nation--but would they necessarily keep agreements with undead-loving Ermor, or the chaotic blood-worshipping pagans of Pangaea, or the heretical Golem Cult of Agartha, or...you get the point. I have a saying as a GM: "Flavour Text can justify (or limit!) anything." That's true here as anywhere. RP is just an excuse. Period. --I do not want to play with people who break NAPs whenever convenient. That is not the type of game I want to play. So I am deliberately taking steps to try to make it so those types of people don't want to play with me! They don't have to agree with my opinions--and they don't have to play with me either. I would prefer it if they didn't! If these posts and this stance of mine turn away potential scumsucking, backstabbing liars from playing games I have joined, then GREAT! I have achieved at least part of my goals. --You'll note I haven't publicly accused anyone, although I do have a (private) Hall of Shame list of my own. It's a short list, of only five names so far: two definite, one probable, and two that bear watching (but could go either way). Some of these names are easily searchable by my posts, but I have no intentions of publicly lashing out in this thread. That will accomplish worse than nothing, only serving to make me look bad. (Which seems silly--and pathetic!--to me, but *shrug* it's true.) --This is a heated subject, and I don't want to escalate things. I think I've said everything I have to say on this subject, and I'm going to try to keep from regurgitating the same old stuff. I won't post here again unless I feel I have something valuable to contribute. --IndyPendant. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
Quote:
Come on, this is bull and you know it. Those imaginary people in Dom 3 do not exist. The people that you make agreements with in a game do. If you don't understand the difference and can't own up to breaking an agreement because you say it is your imaginary pretender's fault then you are the one who needs to go outside more. >"I like to think of NAP and alliances as secrets. Having them recorded by a third party just makes the gem less fun for me, and it screams for corruption of the neutral party." But then do you trust the host of the game? I think it's all very convenient to keep your NAPs a secret after you've spelled out how likely you are to break them. >"But, somehow, when a real person is involved, all should be fair ? When I RP I actually choose to give some hints before backstabbing people, and show that my pretender isn't reliable. If people don't get it, it's their own loss." You realize that these quality of these hints highly subjective and that these hints are determined by you. Why would it be in your interests to betray your actions? I'm sure you can drop some obscure hints and then point to them after the fact as proof that you fulfilled your NAP responsibilities, but I think this is bull. >"I realise this post may sound harsh and may alarm some of my allies in the games I play, but : - comparing a murder in a game to real life, to me, shows that you need to take a break from playing and cool down a bit." You can compare it to any crime you like. Say you use tell the police your imaginary friend or pretender god made you steal someone's laptop or break a car window. It's still the same principle. Frankly, I think you need to get in touch with reality a bit more. There are infinite amount of things you can excuse with crappy roleplaying, I frankly, I think it is nonsense. Your resort to ad hominem doesn't lend any merit to your argument. >"NAP nor anything related to a game should be done on a out-of-character basis, that's just calling for real life and lasting grudge." That's called taking responsibility for your actions. How can you be trusted if you make up a brand new identity every game? I think you should read my other post. I've answered your other points. In general though, you argument is flawed because your pretender god identity is completely disposable. You make a new one for every game, and therefore you essentially have zero accountability for your actions. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Another I idea I have is a "Hall of Honorable Players" (if you want a less corny name, then you can change it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif ). It would be completely voluntary -- everyone who wants to play in a sportsmanship-like manner signs up. People who make up flimsy roleplaying excuses for bull**** need not apply. |
Re: Hall of Shame
I'm confused.
Some of you say that NAP's are not necessarily honored. You say you should be prepared for betrayal at any time. But what is the point of having a NAP when you have to devote mages/troops/resources to defend against betrayal & invasion, and essentially act like the NAP doesn't exist in the first place? (I may be a novice to MP, and I'm certainly not suggesting that a war game, should be anything other than a war game, but as far as I can see, these 'honor if you feel like it NAPs' is a contradiction in terms, or just rather meaningless.) |
Re: Hall of Shame
moderation, it's your right to play in games where NAPs are always honored. It sounds like it would be a good idea for you to start some games like that, or at least check that that's a condition of the games that you join.
But I have no idea why you are linking to Sheap's tips in your signature when you seem to disagree with every single point he makes in Tip 1: Sheap: 1.1) Don't berate the other players moderation: People who make up flimsy roleplaying excuses for bull**** need not apply. Sheap: 1.2) Do remember to draw a clear distinction between your in-game (role playing) persona and your out of game self. This is especially important if you are planning on lying and backstabbing. IndyPendant: Blaming any backstabbing on RP is nothing more than a convenient cop-out. moderation: Exactly! Sheap: 1.3) Keep the wall between the game and the forums/real world. moderation: I believe that diplomatic functions like negotiating NAPs should be done out of character. Sheap: 1.4) ... Treating other players with fairness might help your nations get along, but nobody has a right to demand or even expect it. No quote from you for this one, but the general impression I get is that you don't agree. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Quote:
I think the idea of a generally accepted code of conduct to be a good idea. Getting everyone to agree on what those rules should be of course, is more difficult. I adopted Sheap's Tips in the absence of anything else. But after some consideration, I have formulated different opinions for reasons listed above. I just find inappropriate roleplaying more problematic than no roleplaying. I find Tips 2 and 3 to still be useful though. |
Re: Hall of Shame
It seems that some of you are trying to construct some kind of artificial certainties (player made laws) within this game besides the natural ones we already have.
Natural laws are the only real certainties we have inside the game. They are not in any way established by the players. It is Gods (Illwinters) law if you wish. If you put your trust in them you will not be deceived (except when cheated - see below). Examples of natural laws would be: *If you spend gold on recruiting a unit that unit will show up the next turn if you haven't lost the province and if unrest is under 100. *If a move a unit into enemy territory a conflict will occur. If we break any of those rules we are cheating and that should and must be punished severely. Then there are the artificial laws that the players enforce upon themselves or try to enforce upon others. They are established on the grounds mutual or solitary interests. They are enforced by mutual interest, fear, power, hatred, love etc. They should not extend into other games or the outside world as they are created on and within a unique and confined world/universe. Examples of artificial laws would be : *A NAP *An alliance *Trading Breaking artificial laws can and should only be punished by those who want to uphold the laws, and only within the game itself as they are confined within it. The details of the punishment is up to the players and could be anything except breaking the natural laws and extending the punishment beyond the game world where those laws apply. To summarize Natural laws are the certainties on which you should build your empire. Artificial laws are uncertain and changing. Putting all your trust in them would be folly. Artificial laws could however be great and powerful tools in capable hands, as constructs by the players to enhance their natural power within the game world. Although the creators of such laws must not forget that the laws existence is dependent upon not only her own interests and power, but on every player's own agenda within that universe. And as every player has her own agenda and goals (winning is not everyones goal) that creates the need to know that agenda. Knowledge is the power you have to stabilize such artificial laws One last thing: if you ever want and feel the need to put your trust in artificial laws, make sure that you have your own natural power to fall back upon when your fortune and friends turn their back on you. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Dedas, I hope you're not trying to make a connection between what you refer to as "natural law" and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-law_argument because that would just be too complicated. In any case, Illwinter Gamer Design is a cool company, but I can assure you that it is not God.
You make it sound like I am trying to build a flying machine circa 1800. By your definition, even simple team games defy the laws of gravity because team games are not coded in by Illwinter and therefore defy "natural law" because they are only held together by spit and player agreements. As far as I'm concerned, any set of rules that a group of people mutually agree to as conditions for playing a game is fine if they like it that way. The problem here is that there is some ambiguity about whether people mean what they say when they say it, which leads to disagreements such as this. |
Re: Hall of Shame
I find the debate interesting.
Out of RP elements, I think the question is : do dominions is an alliance/betrayal game (like Diplomacy and many other games using simultaneous moves) or do dominions is a pure wargame using simultaneous moves just because it's more convenient for pbems ? If we are in some kind of med-fan diplomacy, of course noboby has to be honourable ; if we are in a game where strategy and not betrayal is supposed to decide who wins, NAPs and other agreements must be honored. The fact is, without rules or metagame reputation, the dominions wego system is ultra favorable to traitors. So the tradition of "unbreakable" (without getting a bad reputation) x turns warning NAP is very logical if players don't see dominions as one game of the Diplomacy genre. Surprise attacks on an ally/NAP-partneer may be seen as an exploitation of the wego system, exactly like not respecting a trade agreement. So another question is, do I have the right to propose you a trade and never pay ? IMO if we consider abusing the wego system for surprise NAP-breaking a valid behaviour, abusing the trade system should be considered one too, after all it's exactly the same : the two things are non-enforceable in the actual system, and an exploitation of the mechanics of simultaneous turn resolution. Personnally as an old Diplomacy player (first strategy game I've played a lot) I have nothing against Dom-Diplo games, but as I know the community is rather in a Dom-Wargame approach I tend to always respect NAPs, be fair in trades, etc... And dislike players who pretend to ignore that the community usually expect them to respect "artificial laws". It would change of course if I sign to a game someone launch saying we are playing the Diplomacy form. So I think MP games should more often have a clear philosophy and rules stating what is allowed or not, saying since the beginning if a particular game is Dominions-Diplomacy or Dominions-Wargame or Dominions-RPG or what you want. For a Dominions-wargame strict ruleset, I would suggest both NAPs and trade agreements to be public (or the publication in the game thread of related PM allowed in case of betrayal). And in case someone is accused of violation and deny there must be a master password ready to be given to someone (not playing) to verify. So no flame war with false accusations, hall of shame, etc... clear rules, a way to enforce them, and if someone don't respect them, he is out of this particular game. |
Re: Hall of Shame
Ha ha ha! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif I'm just drawing a loose analogy. The terms I choose might not be "modern" but I think they hold up and are sound. By natural law I mean a law that is in the nature set by the game. And I'm not saying that God is Illwinter but rather pointing out that we *could* look at it that way so to further illustrate the analogy with lex naturalis (in a scholastic sense).
Of course you can establish your own set of natural laws. But every player participating in the game have to agree upon that those laws are natural laws and thus cannot be broken. This have to be done in every game you play. Else the natural and unbreakable laws that apply are those that are set by the developers. Any other law (agreement) is artificial and can thus be broken (with the said consequences of course). |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.